BHAGWAN SAHAI Vs. SHRIKISAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Alwar, whereby the Tribunal had rejected the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1, Shrikishan had filed a suit for eviction, recovery of possession and recovery of rent of three years against the respondent No. 2, Manish Arora and the present petitioner before the learned Rent Tribunal. Both the respondent No. 2 and petitioner had submitted their written statements. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC before the Tribunal praying that his name should be deleted from the array of the respondents. The petitioner had made the said prayer on the ground that the shop, the property in dispute, was let out to him in the year 1970. However, the said shop was returned back to the respondent No. 1 by the petitioner on 31.12.1970. Ever since then, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent No. 1 and him. Secondly, he is being falsely roped in a civil litigation for no rhyme or reason. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that even earlier the respondent No. 1 had filed civil suit only against the respondent No. 2 dealing with rental matters. In those suits, the petitioner was not arrayed as respondent. Thirdly, even the respondent No. 2 Irs admitted the fact that he happens to be the tenant of the respondent No. l. Ine respondent No. 2 in his written statement has also given out that he has been paying the rent regularly. Thus, there is no question of arrears of rent or default in payment of rent by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, these aspects have not been appreciated by the learned Tribunal.

(3.) A bare perusal of the order dated 12.01.2010 clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has noted the contentions raised by the petitioner and has correctly held that the issue whether the petitioner was an erstwhile tenant or is a present tenant is an issue that can be decided only by recording of evidence. Moreover, whether the possession of the premises was handed -over by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 is equally a question of fact. Furthermore, whether the premises have been sublet or not is also a question of fact which can only be decided after recording of the evidence. Thus, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in holding, and in dismissing the application on the ground that the application cannot be decided until and unless sufficient evidence is proved. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order.